Yet another Libertarian loony

[shanek]

At most I claim he seems to take seriously the notion that the 16th was never ratified.

And is, therefore, unconstitutional. This is the problem with trying to debate with you; you get so involved in semantic evasion you never actually get around to defending your arguments.

I am not flaming him. I am just pointing out that he assumes that there is no statute requiring the payment of income tax.

Very argumentative at best. The honest claim would be that he suspects that there is no such statute.

He is just wanting to find out if other people knew it when they used force to collect said tax.

Again, that comes AFTER the aforementioned investigation, and is, therefore, contingent on the investigation showing such.

Look back again to my original post. I only reference the statute theory.

That post did not concern Badnarik.

 

[shanek]

If I, as a Libertarian, who is in general agreement with the underlying message of undue corporate influence, read it that way, how would our staunchest critics read it?

What you don't seem to realize is that that doesn't matter. In a political race, it's all about getting attention. I wish it weren't that way, but it is.

The best polticial messages are clear, concise, and blame-free statements of the problem at hand.

No, the best political messages get attention—any kind of attention—for the candidate. I'd say you have a very naïve view of how campaigns and elections work.

 

[Jocko]

Geez...and you accuse ME of dishonesty!!! Let's break down his proposal:

"federal grand jury investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code" You have an "investigation" when you want to FIND OUT if something is true or not.

"in the event that evidence proves that they knew that no statute exists that..." "In the event that" means that there is a possibility that the claim being investigated is wrong. And "no STATUTE exists" deals with the existance of a particular statute in the Internal Revenue Code, and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the constitutionality of the Income Tax.

The is the absolute limit. As written, the quote clearly states that the investigation is not intended to discover the legality of the thing, only if the management is complicit in the ongoing "fraud" in the name of an "unconstitutional government."

It assumes illegality and unconstitutionality on behalf of the IRS... and the only thing it's supposed to determine is just how deep the conspiracy goes. Those assumptions make it blindingly, glaringly obvious that there is no doubt whatsoever that Badnarik has decided the 16th is unconstitutional, nor is there any doubt that he would hold hundreds or thousands of innocent, if inefficient, citizens hostage to his grandiose crusade.

A third-grade grammar student could parse that statement better than you have, Shanek. Time to take the blinders off. Badnarik is a freakin' loony. Move him to the Netherlands- I think he needs a few more windmills to tilt at before trying American politics.

 

[Suddenly]

The is the absolute limit. As written, the quote clearly states that the investigation is not intended to discover the legality of the thing, only if the management is complicit in the ongoing "fraud" in the name of an "unconstitutional government."

It assumes illegality and unconstitutionality on behalf of the IRS... and the only thing it's supposed to determine is just how deep the conspiracy goes. Those assumptions make it blindingly, glaringly obvious that there is no doubt whatsoever that Badnarik has decided the 16th is unconstitutional, nor is there any doubt that he would hold hundreds or thousands of innocent, if inefficient, citizens hostage to his grandiose crusade.

A third-grade grammar student could parse that statement better than you have, Shanek. Time to take the blinders off. Badnarik is a freakin' loony. Move him to the Netherlands- I think he needs a few more windmills to tilt at before trying American politics.

Heh heh. Not often I can just agree with Jacko and leave it at that.

 

[Jocko]

Heh heh. Not often I can just agree with Jacko and leave it at that.

Ditto that. Well-presented argument ya lousy ambulance chaser.

 

[Suddenly]

Ditto that. Well-presented argument ya lousy ambulance chaser.

Ha!! I've never chased an ambulance in my life..





I'm a criminal defense lawyer... we chase police cars.

 

[crimresearch]

So is a 'lousy' ambulance chaser one who has never caught an ambulance, or one who doesn't know what to do with one if they catch it?

 

[varwoche]

Badnarik is a human peace pipe for crying out loud. Who else is capable of uniting this opinionated, ragtag crowd?

Yes, feel the love.

 

[Blondin]

So is a 'lousy' ambulance chaser one who has never caught an ambulance, or one who doesn't know what to do with one if they catch it?

Neither. He has an infestation of little critters in his hair (lice).

 

[Skeptic]

You have levied SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS against me PERSONALLY.

Presumably you're speaking about my post in this thread claiming that many libertarian are (in effect) members in a political cult. You replied to that thread yourself, and said that I'm a bloody liar and you're NOT a cult member, neener neener, you-take-that-back, etc., etc., etc.

Since, however, I didn't mention you at all in my description--I only spoke generally about cultic libertarians--why exactly do you think I was targeting you? Obviously you recognized yourself in the description, but that should give you pause and make you think about your beliefs, not rant against me.

You're like the kid in the old story; the teacher comes into the room and says, "Class, had anybody seen my new pencil?", and a kid shouts out, unbidden, "I didn't take it!!!". Well, we now know who took the pencil, don't we? Same here: I wrote, "Some libertarians are cult members", and you reply indigently, "No I'm not!!! You take that personal insult back!!!". Well, we now know who is a cultic libertarian, don't we?

Frankly, Shane, your own replies prove my point far better than I could have hoped to demonstrate.

 

[shanek]

The is the absolute limit. As written, the quote clearly states that the investigation is not intended to discover the legality of the thing, only if the management is complicit in the ongoing "fraud" in the name of an "unconstitutional government."

Are you having trouble reading??? "...investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code." AS TO THE LEGITIMACY OF. As in, THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO FIND OUT.

This is basic English, people.

 

[shanek]

You're like the kid in the old story; the teacher comes into the room and says, "Class, had anybody seen my new pencil?", and a kid shouts out, unbidden, "I didn't take it!!!". Well, we now know who took the pencil, don't we? Same here: I wrote, "Some libertarians are cult members", and you reply indigently, "No I'm not!!! You take that personal insult back!!!". Well, we now know who is a cultic libertarian, don't we?

I WAS MENTIONED BY NAME!!!!!!!! Geez....

 

[Meadmaker]

I signed on to the forum for a different reason, but this thread caught my eye.

I clicked on Jack Stratton's web site, provided in the initial link, and he doesn't seem like a raving lunatic to me.

And to the extent that he might be considered one, I would think having your kids taken away from you and held for years might make you go a little bit around the bend.

I was curious enough to check out the case by googling "Jack Stratton" to see what I could find. (I found your website, Shane.)

Sometimes, I wonder if there has to be more to the story, but in this case, I haven't seen any.

As best I can tell, the Strattons were people of modest means with a lot of children. They refused any form of welfare. They homeschooled. They didn't keep up the repairs on the house. I didn't see anything that said their children were in poor health. Were they?

They did not get their kids vaccinated. That, in my opinion, is bad, and a little bit loony, but only a little bit.

They are fundamentalists. If you ask me, that's a bit loony, too.

But, taking away their children just for that? It makes no sense.

Ok, the hostile rhetoric probably makes them difficult to deal with, but in the absence of other information, I just don't see these people as lunatics, and if they employ hyperbolic rhetoric, who can blame them? If someone took my kid, I might be employing a lot more than rhetoric.

And what possible justification could there be for keeping an 18 year old in custody? Is he retarded? I don't get this.

I found newspaper articles where I expected to see more stuff, and stuff that made the Strattons look very, very, bad, but I didn't see it. So, what's the true story? It looks to me like this is truly a case of government run amok.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Are you having trouble reading??? "...investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code." AS TO THE LEGITIMACY OF. As in, THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO FIND OUT.

This is basic English, people.

I'm sure in your loony world it seems that way.

 

[shanek]

As best I can tell, the Strattons were people of modest means with a lot of children. They refused any form of welfare. They homeschooled. They didn't keep up the repairs on the house. I didn't see anything that said their children were in poor health. Were they?

Yes, they were. And after being initially examined by DSS, they promptly moved to a new house in Gaston County that had plenty of room for them and good upkeep.

They did not get their kids vaccinated. That, in my opinion, is bad, and a little bit loony, but only a little bit.

But none of the government's business, especially since they did so for religious reasons.

They are fundamentalists. If you ask me, that's a bit loony, too.

Separation of church and state, dude. It works both ways.

And what possible justification could there be for keeping an 18 year old in custody? Is he retarded? I don't get this.

They CLAIM he's mentally incompetent. But they won't allow Stratton's lawyers to have their psychiatrist examine him.

So, what's the true story? It looks to me like this is truly a case of government run amok.

Pretty much, yeah. It's a snowball effect, really. They mess up, so they try and cover that up, then they try to cover up the coverup, then after awhile they get in so deep there's no way they can just admit there's nothing wrong and give the kids back without losing serious face (and funding).

I think the most upset I got following this story was after the next-oldest kid was sexually abused in the foster home. Someone asked Mecklenburg County Commissioner Parks Helms about that, and he said that at least that was better than staying with the Strattons. HUH??? What could being sexually abused POSSIBLY be better than???

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I signed on to the forum for a different reason, but this thread caught my eye.

I clicked on Jack Stratton's web site, provided in the initial link, and he doesn't seem like a raving lunatic to me.

And to the extent that he might be considered one, I would think having your kids taken away from you and held for years might make you go a little bit around the bend.

I was curious enough to check out the case by googling "Jack Stratton" to see what I could find. (I found your website, Shane.)

Sometimes, I wonder if there has to be more to the story, but in this case, I haven't seen any.

As best I can tell, the Strattons were people of modest means with a lot of children. They refused any form of welfare. They homeschooled. They didn't keep up the repairs on the house. I didn't see anything that said their children were in poor health. Were they?

They did not get their kids vaccinated. That, in my opinion, is bad, and a little bit loony, but only a little bit.

They are fundamentalists. If you ask me, that's a bit loony, too.

But, taking away their children just for that? It makes no sense.

Ok, the hostile rhetoric probably makes them difficult to deal with, but in the absence of other information, I just don't see these people as lunatics, and if they employ hyperbolic rhetoric, who can blame them? If someone took my kid, I might be employing a lot more than rhetoric.

And what possible justification could there be for keeping an 18 year old in custody? Is he retarded? I don't get this.

I found newspaper articles where I expected to see more stuff, and stuff that made the Strattons look very, very, bad, but I didn't see it. So, what's the true story? It looks to me like this is truly a case of government run amok.

There are allegations that they abused their kids, and in my opinion it is very likely that they are quilty.

And yes, the 18 year old is retarded.

 

[Jocko]

Are you having trouble reading??? "...investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code." AS TO THE LEGITIMACY OF. As in, THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO FIND OUT.

This is basic English, people.

No, he said - in his words - the investigation is to establish if the management of the IRS KNEW it was unconstitutional. Unless you're talking about some other quote you haven't posted? Because the one provided assumes the illegality of taxes and only recommends "investigating" complicity in the assumed crime.

Of course, there's the due process thing and holding them hostage might be in violation of THAT amendment (fourth, ain't it? not sure), but what's a little abridgement of rights between friends?

 

[RPG Advocate]

I found newspaper articles where I expected to see more stuff, and stuff that made the Strattons look very, very, bad, but I didn't see it. So, what's the true story? It looks to me like this is truly a case of government run amok.

There are allegations that they abused their kids, and in my opinion it is very likely that they are quilty.

And yes, the 18 year old is retarded

For both matters, the allegations of abuse and the disposition of the 18 year-old, I think the adversarial process will probably bring the truth to the surface. If the government believes the Strattons have commited a crime, they should charge them. DSS should allow the judicial process for determining the disposition of the 18 year-old to proceed. Right now, it's just claim-counterclaim, and visitors to this forum should know that claim-counterclaim means about as much as a Sylvia Browne prediction.

Also, the fact that this has gone on so long without the Strattons being charged with abuse leads me to believe the government's actual evidence implicating the Strattons in a crime is weak. This tilts my opinion on the abuse issue in favor of the Strattons' innocence. There's not enough information to make any judgement on the issue of the 18 year-old.

I'm curious, The Central Scrutinizer, what is the basis for your opinions on both issues?

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate [/i]

>>I'm curious, The Central Scrutinizer, what is the basis for your opinions on both issues?

"Central" never has any basis for his/her opinions. These people are just different. That's enough for "Central".

 

[Meadmaker]

Did they abuse their kids? Or did they spank them? Maybe paddle them? Maybe even paddle them a lot?

I don't spank my kid. (Correction. There have probably been four times in his life where a single swat has landed on him.) I don't think it's a good idea. But I am not so smug about my opinion on the subject that I think it is ok to remove children from their parents.

*************

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Meadmaker
As best I can tell, the Strattons were people of modest means with a lot of children. They refused any form of welfare. They homeschooled. They didn't keep up the repairs on the house. I didn't see anything that said their children were in poor health. Were they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, they were.

**************

Let me make sure I understand. You are saying they were in poor health?


Then this makes a little bit more sense. If the parents were failing to provide the basics of medical care, then they aren't fulfilling their obligations as parents. And that is loony, and more than a little bit loony.

Taking the kids away doesn't seem like a good first option, but maybe it wasn't a first option.

Is it possible, this is pure speculation, that the real story went something like this:

Following reports of squallid conditions, possible abuse, and possible ill-health, DSS investigates. They find that the lousy conditions and ill-health are well founded. They offer to help by putting the Strattons in touch with appropriate services provided by the government. The Strattons refuse and spout a bunch of Biblical nonsense. Meanwhile, their kids, in poor health, continue to suffer. The only way to get medical treatment to the kids is to take them out of the setting. So, they do.

I have heard of occaisional cases where kids were removed from parental custody because the parents refused to provide needed medical care. The case that comes to mind involved Christian Scientists. In my opinion, the state acted ok. Is this such a case?